On 01/24/2014 10:39 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 24 January 2014 10:32, Björn Persson <bjorn at xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> wrote:
>> I'm not familiar with APG but from your description it sounds like a
>> perfect example of stable and reliable software – the best kind there
>> is.
> Right, so it belongs in Fedora; I don't think anyone is arguing
> against that. There is a metric ton of packages that are dead upstream
> with very few (if any users). I feel that a lot of these types of
> package are getting auto-cleansed from the distro when they fail the
> automated rebuilds a few releases in a row, or when the original
> fedora maintainer gets sick of the bug-mails and simply orphans it.
>> My mail was about crappy GUI applications that users install and then
> the application crashes, they report a bug or feature request, wait,
> and nothing happens as the upstream is long dead and there are going
> to be no more releases. We can include those in the distribution for
> very little "cost", but we shouldn't be advertising them in the
> software center among all the other awesome applications we have.
If there exist and centralized software application center I as an end
user would just go to my "Gnome Application Center" scroll or search
through application list, double click or double tap the application
that I would find interesting and install it which if I understand
correctly would be installed into application container outline by
Alexander and Lennart.
If I lack proprietary driver of any kind to run chosen application I
would think the application center would point that out to me as well
and where to get that driver if it could not install it for me or be
told that the application I have chosen would be incompatible with all
of my device if it did not find it.
So this may come as completely stupid question but what has centralized
software application center for Gnome have to do with distribution since
I as an end user would never install application in Gnome in any other
way then to use "Gnome Application Center" thus I as an application
developer would never develop my application to be used outside Gnome
and polices around the application center like Android has [1][2] and
quite frankly would be glad not having to deal with distribution package
management systems like...
DPKG
APT - aptitude - dselect - Ubuntu Software Center
RPM Package Manager
YUM - APT-RPM - poldek - up2date - urpmi - ZYpp
Classic Tar ball
slapt-get - slackpkg - zendo - netpkg - swaret
Bunch of "others"
appbrowser - Conary - Equo - pkgutils - pacman - PETget - PISI - Portage
- Smart Package Manager - Steam - Tazpkg - Upkg﻿
Which brings up another question if the intent is to aim for "Gnome
Application Center" dont you need to control and release your own OS on
a rebase-able release schedule since for example here in Iceland they
have already replaced pc with tablets in several school so the next
generation of end users is *used* to get a rebase-able update for their
device.
We cannot clean up the distribution which I consider the nr.1 priority
we need to do just so it becomes agile enough for anykind of future
proposal because the policy and the community will ,seems to be "hey if
it automated rebuilds we ship it!" ( and this is just one distribution
policy's then there is Debian,Arch,Suse etc.. )
So I get to the point I'm trying to see and understand what role do
distribution play in that future for Gnome and why is Gnome contributors
wasting so much time and energy in distribution politics and
compatability as opposed to fully commit to the next step of the
evolution and move beyond distribution in become a distribution of it's own?
JBG
1. http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html
2. http://play.google.com/about/developer-distribution-agreement.html